Vila v. Cunningham et al (INMATE 2)
ORDERED as follows: 1) Petitioner Anthony Curtis Vila's 30 objection is OVERRULED; 2) The 29 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED; 3) The 11 amended petition for habeas corpus relief is DENIED; and 4) The 11 amended petit ion for habeas corpus relief is DISMISSED without prejudice to allow Petitioner an opportunity to exhaust available state-court remedies with respect to the speedy-trial claim pending before this court. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 6/29/2017. (wcl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
ANTHONY CURTIS VILA,
DARYL D. BAILEY, STEVE
BILLY, LUTHER STRANGE,
GROVER SMITH, RANDY
BROCK, and STEVEN T.
CASE NO. 2:17-CV-24-WKW
Before the court is the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 29),
to which Petitioner Anthony Curtis Vila has filed objections (Doc. # 30). The court
has conducted an independent and de novo review of those portions of the
Recommendation to which objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
The thrust of Mr. Vila’s objection is that he need not exhaust his state-court
remedies because “this writ presents FEDERAL QUESTIONS regarding
constitutional issues that can only be brought in FEDERAL COURT.” (Doc. # 30
at 1 (capitalization in original).) Accordingly, Mr. Vila argues, “there is an absence
of available State corrective process,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(B)(i), and the
exhaustion requirement does not bar his petition for habeas relief. See Duckworth
v. Serrano, 454 U.S. 1, 3 (1981).
Mr. Vila’s objection misunderstands the relationship between federal and
state courts. “[S]tate courts have inherent authority, and are thus presumptively
competent, to adjudicate claims arising under the laws of the United States.” Tafflin
v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455, 458 (1990) (citations omitted); cf. Ex parte Royall, 117 U.S.
241, 251 (1886) (explaining that state and federal courts are “equally bound to guard
and protect rights secured by the constitution”). And while this system of concurrent
jurisdiction admits of a couple of “narrowly defined” exceptions, see Haywood v.
Drown, 556 U.S. 729, 735 (2009), neither exception applies to this case. Therefore,
there is no “absence of available State corrective process,” as Mr. Vila can seek
review of his speedy-trial claim in the courts of the State of Alabama. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(b)(1)(B)(i). Unless and until Mr. Vila “invok[es] one complete round of the
State’s established appellate review process,” his failure to exhaust state-court
remedies will bar federal habeas relief. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 828, 845
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
Petitioner Anthony Curtis Vila’s objection (Doc. # 30) is
The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 29) is
The amended petition for habeas corpus relief (Doc. # 11) is DENIED;
The amended petition for habeas corpus relief (Doc. # 11) is
DISMISSED without prejudice to allow Petitioner an opportunity to exhaust
available state-court remedies with respect to the speedy-trial claim pending before
A final judgment will be entered separately.
DONE this 29th day of June, 2017.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?